Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Licensing in a Polluting Industry
We consider a firm’s incentive for foreign direct investment (FDI) and international technology licensing in a polluting industry. We explain the rationale and the welfare implications of complementarity between FDI and licensing, i.e., the firm’s strategy of “FDI and licensing” ( FL ), which is emp...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Environmental & resource economics 2024-09, Vol.87 (9), p.2361-2399 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 2399 |
---|---|
container_issue | 9 |
container_start_page | 2361 |
container_title | Environmental & resource economics |
container_volume | 87 |
creator | Cao, Jiyun Mukherjee, Arijit |
description | We consider a firm’s incentive for foreign direct investment (FDI) and international technology licensing in a polluting industry. We explain the rationale and the welfare implications of complementarity between FDI and licensing, i.e., the firm’s strategy of “FDI and licensing” (
FL
), which is empirically relevant but ignored in the literature. When the environmental tax cannot be committed, the firm adopts the licensing strategy if the pollution intensity is not high, and the licensing strategy may create lower consumer surplus and welfare compared to both FDI and
FL
. However, if the pollution intensity is high, the firm undertakes
FL
, which provide higher consumer surplus and welfare compared to both licensing and FDI. When the government can commit to the environmental tax, the firm always prefers
FL
. The host-country welfare is higher but the consumer surplus and world welfare may be lower under the committed tax policy compared to the non-committed tax policy. These results hold under Cournot competition and Stackelberg competition. We further show that
FL
can be the equilibrium strategy of the foreign firm if there is fixed-fee licensing instead of a two-part tariff licensing, which is considered in the main analysis. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10640-024-00886-7 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3153714971</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3153714971</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-9d9da23cf9fc3783e75395a59b8b0df3c3b6b99ad97557a2fd0c4880dc22a9643</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LxDAQhoMouK7-AU8BL16qk06TNEfxc2VBD3oO2TRdK91Ek1bYf2-0guDB0zDM884MDyHHDM4YgDxPDEQFBZRVAVDXopA7ZMa4xIJxKHfJDFQeiUrAPjlI6RUAlKzEjNzfhOi6tadXXXR2oAv_4dKwcX6gxjf0ydkXH_qw3tJlZ51PnV_TzlNDH0Pfj8NXu_DNmIa4PSR7remTO_qpc_J8c_10eVcsH24XlxfLwqKQQ6Ea1ZgSbatai7JGJzkqbrha1StoWrS4EiulTKMk59KUbQO2qmtobFkaJSqck9Np71sM72P-Vm-6ZF3fG-_CmDQyjpJVSrKMnvxBX8MYff5OYxYgsAYUmSonysaQUnStfovdxsStZqC_9OpJr8569bdeLXOITiFng-_Sb0SBUCUC8ozghKQ89GsXf6__s_gTOlyG7w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3097638036</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Licensing in a Polluting Industry</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Cao, Jiyun ; Mukherjee, Arijit</creator><creatorcontrib>Cao, Jiyun ; Mukherjee, Arijit</creatorcontrib><description>We consider a firm’s incentive for foreign direct investment (FDI) and international technology licensing in a polluting industry. We explain the rationale and the welfare implications of complementarity between FDI and licensing, i.e., the firm’s strategy of “FDI and licensing” (
FL
), which is empirically relevant but ignored in the literature. When the environmental tax cannot be committed, the firm adopts the licensing strategy if the pollution intensity is not high, and the licensing strategy may create lower consumer surplus and welfare compared to both FDI and
FL
. However, if the pollution intensity is high, the firm undertakes
FL
, which provide higher consumer surplus and welfare compared to both licensing and FDI. When the government can commit to the environmental tax, the firm always prefers
FL
. The host-country welfare is higher but the consumer surplus and world welfare may be lower under the committed tax policy compared to the non-committed tax policy. These results hold under Cournot competition and Stackelberg competition. We further show that
FL
can be the equilibrium strategy of the foreign firm if there is fixed-fee licensing instead of a two-part tariff licensing, which is considered in the main analysis.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0924-6460</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-1502</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10640-024-00886-7</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Commitment ; Complementarity ; consumer surplus ; Economic Policy ; Economics ; Economics and Finance ; Environmental Economics ; Environmental incentives ; Environmental Law/Policy/Ecojustice ; Environmental Management ; Environmental tax ; Fiscal policy ; foreign direct investment ; Foreign investment ; Game theory ; industry ; issues and policy ; Licenses ; Licensing ; Licensing (technology) ; Pollution ; Strategy ; Tariffs ; Taxation ; Technology ; Welfare</subject><ispartof>Environmental & resource economics, 2024-09, Vol.87 (9), p.2361-2399</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2024</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2024. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-9d9da23cf9fc3783e75395a59b8b0df3c3b6b99ad97557a2fd0c4880dc22a9643</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9611-2888</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10640-024-00886-7$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10640-024-00886-7$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27843,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cao, Jiyun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mukherjee, Arijit</creatorcontrib><title>Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Licensing in a Polluting Industry</title><title>Environmental & resource economics</title><addtitle>Environ Resource Econ</addtitle><description>We consider a firm’s incentive for foreign direct investment (FDI) and international technology licensing in a polluting industry. We explain the rationale and the welfare implications of complementarity between FDI and licensing, i.e., the firm’s strategy of “FDI and licensing” (
FL
), which is empirically relevant but ignored in the literature. When the environmental tax cannot be committed, the firm adopts the licensing strategy if the pollution intensity is not high, and the licensing strategy may create lower consumer surplus and welfare compared to both FDI and
FL
. However, if the pollution intensity is high, the firm undertakes
FL
, which provide higher consumer surplus and welfare compared to both licensing and FDI. When the government can commit to the environmental tax, the firm always prefers
FL
. The host-country welfare is higher but the consumer surplus and world welfare may be lower under the committed tax policy compared to the non-committed tax policy. These results hold under Cournot competition and Stackelberg competition. We further show that
FL
can be the equilibrium strategy of the foreign firm if there is fixed-fee licensing instead of a two-part tariff licensing, which is considered in the main analysis.</description><subject>Commitment</subject><subject>Complementarity</subject><subject>consumer surplus</subject><subject>Economic Policy</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Economics and Finance</subject><subject>Environmental Economics</subject><subject>Environmental incentives</subject><subject>Environmental Law/Policy/Ecojustice</subject><subject>Environmental Management</subject><subject>Environmental tax</subject><subject>Fiscal policy</subject><subject>foreign direct investment</subject><subject>Foreign investment</subject><subject>Game theory</subject><subject>industry</subject><subject>issues and policy</subject><subject>Licenses</subject><subject>Licensing</subject><subject>Licensing (technology)</subject><subject>Pollution</subject><subject>Strategy</subject><subject>Tariffs</subject><subject>Taxation</subject><subject>Technology</subject><subject>Welfare</subject><issn>0924-6460</issn><issn>1573-1502</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LxDAQhoMouK7-AU8BL16qk06TNEfxc2VBD3oO2TRdK91Ek1bYf2-0guDB0zDM884MDyHHDM4YgDxPDEQFBZRVAVDXopA7ZMa4xIJxKHfJDFQeiUrAPjlI6RUAlKzEjNzfhOi6tadXXXR2oAv_4dKwcX6gxjf0ydkXH_qw3tJlZ51PnV_TzlNDH0Pfj8NXu_DNmIa4PSR7remTO_qpc_J8c_10eVcsH24XlxfLwqKQQ6Ea1ZgSbatai7JGJzkqbrha1StoWrS4EiulTKMk59KUbQO2qmtobFkaJSqck9Np71sM72P-Vm-6ZF3fG-_CmDQyjpJVSrKMnvxBX8MYff5OYxYgsAYUmSonysaQUnStfovdxsStZqC_9OpJr8569bdeLXOITiFng-_Sb0SBUCUC8ozghKQ89GsXf6__s_gTOlyG7w</recordid><startdate>20240901</startdate><enddate>20240901</enddate><creator>Cao, Jiyun</creator><creator>Mukherjee, Arijit</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>OQ6</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7S9</scope><scope>L.6</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9611-2888</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240901</creationdate><title>Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Licensing in a Polluting Industry</title><author>Cao, Jiyun ; Mukherjee, Arijit</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-9d9da23cf9fc3783e75395a59b8b0df3c3b6b99ad97557a2fd0c4880dc22a9643</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Commitment</topic><topic>Complementarity</topic><topic>consumer surplus</topic><topic>Economic Policy</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Economics and Finance</topic><topic>Environmental Economics</topic><topic>Environmental incentives</topic><topic>Environmental Law/Policy/Ecojustice</topic><topic>Environmental Management</topic><topic>Environmental tax</topic><topic>Fiscal policy</topic><topic>foreign direct investment</topic><topic>Foreign investment</topic><topic>Game theory</topic><topic>industry</topic><topic>issues and policy</topic><topic>Licenses</topic><topic>Licensing</topic><topic>Licensing (technology)</topic><topic>Pollution</topic><topic>Strategy</topic><topic>Tariffs</topic><topic>Taxation</topic><topic>Technology</topic><topic>Welfare</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cao, Jiyun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mukherjee, Arijit</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>ECONIS</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>AGRICOLA</collection><collection>AGRICOLA - Academic</collection><jtitle>Environmental & resource economics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cao, Jiyun</au><au>Mukherjee, Arijit</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Licensing in a Polluting Industry</atitle><jtitle>Environmental & resource economics</jtitle><stitle>Environ Resource Econ</stitle><date>2024-09-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>87</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>2361</spage><epage>2399</epage><pages>2361-2399</pages><issn>0924-6460</issn><eissn>1573-1502</eissn><abstract>We consider a firm’s incentive for foreign direct investment (FDI) and international technology licensing in a polluting industry. We explain the rationale and the welfare implications of complementarity between FDI and licensing, i.e., the firm’s strategy of “FDI and licensing” (
FL
), which is empirically relevant but ignored in the literature. When the environmental tax cannot be committed, the firm adopts the licensing strategy if the pollution intensity is not high, and the licensing strategy may create lower consumer surplus and welfare compared to both FDI and
FL
. However, if the pollution intensity is high, the firm undertakes
FL
, which provide higher consumer surplus and welfare compared to both licensing and FDI. When the government can commit to the environmental tax, the firm always prefers
FL
. The host-country welfare is higher but the consumer surplus and world welfare may be lower under the committed tax policy compared to the non-committed tax policy. These results hold under Cournot competition and Stackelberg competition. We further show that
FL
can be the equilibrium strategy of the foreign firm if there is fixed-fee licensing instead of a two-part tariff licensing, which is considered in the main analysis.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s10640-024-00886-7</doi><tpages>39</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9611-2888</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0924-6460 |
ispartof | Environmental & resource economics, 2024-09, Vol.87 (9), p.2361-2399 |
issn | 0924-6460 1573-1502 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3153714971 |
source | PAIS Index; SpringerLink Journals |
subjects | Commitment Complementarity consumer surplus Economic Policy Economics Economics and Finance Environmental Economics Environmental incentives Environmental Law/Policy/Ecojustice Environmental Management Environmental tax Fiscal policy foreign direct investment Foreign investment Game theory industry issues and policy Licenses Licensing Licensing (technology) Pollution Strategy Tariffs Taxation Technology Welfare |
title | Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Licensing in a Polluting Industry |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-12T09%3A28%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Foreign%20Direct%20Investment%20and%20Technology%20Licensing%20in%20a%20Polluting%20Industry&rft.jtitle=Environmental%20&%20resource%20economics&rft.au=Cao,%20Jiyun&rft.date=2024-09-01&rft.volume=87&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=2361&rft.epage=2399&rft.pages=2361-2399&rft.issn=0924-6460&rft.eissn=1573-1502&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10640-024-00886-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3153714971%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3097638036&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |